"Annoying new rules set announcements" Topic

When I see a brand new $40+ rules set announced, my first thought is "Is this compatible with what I already have?"

In other words, if it is Ancients, does it use WRG basing? WAB basing?
If it is AWI, does it use British Grenadier basing, or Patriots and Loyalists basing, or individual figure basing…

If Colonials, are the figures individually based, like in TSATF?

If WW2, will my Flames of War infantry basing work, or will it be a bother.

Please do not suggest sabot basing. It is clumsy, Also, If I want a new rules set, I want to be able to use it WITH NO MODIFICATIONS. I like to play a rules set as the author intended. It avoids arguments for one thing. House rules and modifications will inevitably follow, of course.

All I am asking is that the author let me know if what I have will work. Often, both armies being based by the same system will NOT work. (See WAB versus DBX or WRG regarding auxilia, warbands, LMI/LHI, etc. There are enough differences to matter.) I would like to know that.

Another thing that would be handy to know is if my regimental organization will clash with his rules which are brigade or divisional.

Is it too much to ask in an ad that wants me to buy his rules?

Yes it is. Deal with it.

You're asking for a degree of mindreading that is beyond the human. Too many variables to cover. Also it take sthe limited ad message space and spends too much of it talking about OTHER sets of rules rather than highlighting what's cool about the ones being sold.

I've found that even if one says "Base the figures however you want" someone still says "Yes, but how?"

hotleadsnewcomputer, You are wrong, and I am right.

He wants me to BUY his rules, and the least he can do is tell me if I can use them.

For once I agree with John. I have a lot of figures and won't rebase.

You are wrong, and I am right.

Quoted for sheer argumentative brilliance.

Personally I like the fact that the Impetus website has a link to detailed basing requirements up front. You don't need to provide a comparison with each and every other rules system on the market, just a clear statement of what your own rules require to allow people to draw their own conclusions.

I agree with John here, too. Although the manufacturer does not need to mention any other rules or company in his ad-- all he has to do is actually say (or show in a photo) how the figures need to be based for his game. The reader can then decide if that is enough like what he already has to make purchasing the set worthwhile. Kind of a win/win situation.

As to telling your potential customer "Deal with it!"… you just lost MY business and probably a LOT more besides.

After finding it (for about 5 minutes) a refreshing change, I now have decided I have a gripe with games that say, in big letters 'Base your figures any way you like'

My Club is gonna be on shutdown for 6 weeks, and I know if I walk into another with my BKC Figures on PP bases, It will give me grief.

TELL US how to base our figures. Make it obligatory, damn you, and we shall obey.

Oh dear, I have to agree with John too.

For example, assume you are releasing a WW2 game and it is designed for 15mm figures at a company/platoon level. You will be in competition with Battlefront, PBI, FOW, etc. You can design your basing particulars any way you want, but at least indicate if your game is compatible with what your prospective buyers already own.

But I will take John to task for:

Please do not suggest sabot basing. It is clumsy,……

As someone who has most most of his 28mm armies individually based, I always use sabots. They are called movement trays. They are all magnetized and are used for transportation too. Clumsy? How else to move 100-150 figures? Plus, it takes about 10-15 seconds to move my army from carrying case to tabletop. They minimize the broken or missing spear/shield hassles too.

Ralph

I do get those type of questions a lot.

Maybe not a comprehensive list in a news announcement but certainly in the information supplied to retailers (or on the rules website) so it can put in with the product description.

I vote with John on this issue!

If I see an advertisement for shiny new "XYZ" Napoleonics, or ACW, or Medieval rules, PLEASE tell me quite clearly on your website or somewhere on the ad what I need to play.

Tell me if your rules require (or suggest) 20mm x 40mm bases for infantry, 40x40mm for artillery, and just how many figures I'll need to play some "average" games using your rules set.

An illustrated photo will do fine, if labelled properly.
Ex/ Pictured above is a 1000pt British army with 3 companies of infantry, 20 figures/company on 20mm bases; along with two 12-man cavalry detachments on 20x40mm bases, 20-man unit of skirmishers. Officer w/runners and colours bearers also included.

Is something like this too much to ask if you expect someone to lay out they hard-earned money on your product?

Or alternatively, e mail the publisher/author and ask the question if it is not made clear from the outset.

This info on a website, sure, no problem. That's what websites are for. but in an ad? No, space is too limited. Follow the link to the website.

Although even armies based for "WRG standard" keep having to get rebased every time PB asnd RBS redo the army lists.

I don't agree with John. It's advert space not a review or preamble. In this day and age there should be website support and THERE is where you should find the fine detail (and if said support is not there, then the publisher is missing the boat). How much detail is there in any product that's advertised? You still have to read the box, bottle etc. Of course I wouldn't expect anyone to buy rules sight unseen, but there are loads of options, including this very fprum. This is just another wargamer "silver spoon" issue.

I wouldnt expect that kind of infomation in a advert – advertising space is too expensive and for advertising your rules highlights as someone else pointed out.

However i would in this internet age expect to be able to find your rules web site or forum showing clearly and explicitly what basing requirements are needed etc.

And again do NOT just say "use any basing blah blah blah" as that is simply a cop out – they are your rules you designed so you state what is recommended please.

There are no hard and fast rules about what "should" go in an advertisement.
However…
They want me to buy it, and if I don't see that information, I am not buying it.
The onus is on the publisher to tell me, NOT me to find out. Why should *I* have to put myself out to try to track it down by going to their website, by joining their Yahoo group, asking on TMP where I will get contradictory answers, etc.

Tell me up front, or I am not buying it. Very simple. If they do not think I should know this information, they obviously do not want my money.

"And again do NOT just say "use any basing blah blah blah" as that is simply a cop out – they are your rules you designed so you state what is recommended please."

Not necessarily. It depends on the game design. In a skirmish game, what odds if they are square, round or triangular bases? For high level games where a base represents a brigade or such, then strict base sizes are not often a requirement.

BKC is such a game. You can pretty much use any basing as long as both sides use the same. I'm going to use Crossfire basing so I can do both games without saboting and it should work out fine. Naturally you can't take your bases to an event and expect to play against a dissimilarly based army.

What is confusing is to say "Use any basing" and then proceed to give a recommended base size. I'm then left with, "Well, can I really use any base size, or should I conform to the recommendations?"

"Tell me up front, or I am not buying it. Very simple. If they do not think I should know this information, they obviously do not want my money."

Maybe not John. :) I guess they don't have you in mind when they write the advert. :)

I would guess that for most of us, this is not a big issue and the ads are not annoying.

Now, not stating the figure scale for your rules….that's annoying!!! :) Cheers!

I think this argument goes along with the retail web sites needing pictures. All consumers agree that it's nicer to have pictures then not. But retailers have so many reasons to go either way--esentially coming down to a cost/benifit question. Walk a mile in their shoes and it becomes clear…

Have you not thought that mentioning--right out there in the advert--the fact that a new game is not 100% compatible with a popular competator will hurt sales? Even if the only real difference is something simple (simple being an easy work around with minimal impact) like basing bazooka teams with the platoon rather then as individuals. Can you not imagine what adverts would start looking like, "Buy my new really fun rules, they're not 100% compatible with my major competator but they're pretty close, you only need to do xyz…" Do you also not think that it would lead to all games being based the same way out of fear of being ostracized? What effect would that have on creativity?

I do agree that the basing information should be somewhere on a website or on the back of the box but definetly not right in the customers face right off the bat. If it's a big concern then the customer can do the research. But on the other hand, if the customer wants to impulse buy then let them.

As with anything else in life: caveat emptor.

Let's clarify the difference between an ad, an announcement, a press release, and an article.

An ad is meant to catch the eye, establish product identity, and build initial interest. If it gets a sale, that's fine, but in reality its primary purpose is "product recognition." You remember the ad, you remember the product, and you can identify the market (which hopefully includes you, the potential customer). The idea is to get you to walk in the store/visit the website/call the 800 number; at *that* point is when the sales effort takes place. So having an advertisement include basing information would be pointless. That may indeed be a sales point, but it's a sales point really low down on the list. In an ad the sales points are the game's flavor and primary advantages, such as "Fast Play" or "Realistic Tactics" or whatever. (Note that: "Uses the same basing as this other, more well known popular game set!" is not a major sales advantage. In fact, as a sales point it really isn't one at all.) So don't expect basing info in an *ad.*

Announcements are (or should be) the starting point of a marketing campaign. Again, this is a basic introduction: New product, purpose, market and primary sales advantages (which will be echoed in the ads). Again, not the place for the level of detail which would include basing info.

Press releases and announcements are essentially the same thing, though a press release can go into more detail lower down the release, with the understanding that this detail may get trimmed off by various media outlets. Ergo, basing info might be included, but the company can't be certain it will appear in the eventual article itself, as that isn't in the company's control.

Articles: Again, written outside of the company. What's included is up to the writer and the editor.

So where can you get the info you want? From the seller! That indeed *is* the purpose of the website/brochure/product flyer/FAQ. The idea is to get you to contact them and allow them to "sell" you the product.

The fact is that if *all* the info were in the ad or press release, the amount of sales would go down, not up. It is only when people pursue an additional interest that the sale is likely. All the info at the start gives people the opportunity to say, "No… don't really need that," because the truth is that you don't really need it. What you have to build on is desire. Hence the gradual presentation of information in multiple formats, rather than one big push.

I think it's preposterous to put that in an ad. Have it on the website, sure. Even on the back cover or box, but in an ad? No way – unless it's a selling point. If it's not, then I wouldn't mention it. Can't see why anyone would!

I agree with Rob hamper and Stevus. The advert is just the hook that is designed to catch your interest. But the website is where you should get a little more information, and basing is one of the most important criteria for most gamers who already have armies for the period.

And again do NOT just say "use any basing blah blah blah" as that is simply a cop out

I'm not sure why that is. If basing size is not important, then who cares.

How about "use any basing, as long as both sides are consistent – a stand represents a full squad. The recommended base size is 1.25" by 1.25", but again, any consistent size is fine."

Or something like that.
--
Tim

You must all be a bunch of tournament and competition players.

I have played very ejoyable games of WAB with WRG based figures, and with WAB based figures mixed with WRG based figures. It made no difference to the game.

I have developed my own personal basing standards for the periods I game often, and I have yet to find rules that they won't work for.

The obsession with basing is chimera, a paper tiger, a non-issue. Simply put in most games the actual figures convey no information that couldn't be represented by standard military symbols or a numbered counter and a roster sheet. And in non-competition play mnost rules sets will work fine with "heretical" basing. Even DBA has no officially required basing scheme. The rules on basing figures are quite explicit that the basing standards given are just recomended guidelines, not requirements.

I am right now gleefully playing Impetus with Mighty Armies based figures, and DBA and Hack with 2mm figures on non-standard base sizes. I have great fun and the rules work just fine.

In the words of Sgt Hulka "Lighten up, Francis."

In most of the rules sets that I use, the size of the base doesn't really matter as long as there is consistency on both sides.

And what is "sabot basing"?

One of the primary rules of advertising is to never mention the name of your competitor(s) in the ad.

Clarity is the issue.

For example Arcane Ancients/Med basing is NOT compatible with DBx in 80% of the cases. The author assumes that and pays the cost.

What I've seen recently is rules promoters trying to use confusion to their own benefit/sales: it is compatible with DBx and WAB and WM. It will please DBx fans, GW addicts, Armati and 4th Edition lovers. It is great if you want bases as units and spot on if you like a skirmish feel into it.
Now that's the talk that puts me off: there I agree with OFM as long as he disagrees, course.

J

I disagree with OFM. Just buy the dammed things and plagiarize. If you expect to play strictly to a set of rules then base your figures into units accordingly. To ask a publisher to cater to all the known systems out there is asking too much. As you say, "house rules" will change the game anyway. The longer you play the more the rules become your own.

No one is asking the rules writer to cater to any other writer's rules. Just tell me the way they are based and organized.

"Preposterous"? Giving me the information I need before I plunk down $40 USD is preposterous?
What I consider "preposterous" is the whole concept that the consumer has to hunt down this information. EVERYBODY gets upset (justifiably) when a miniatures range is announced (advertised) with no mention of figure scale. How is this any different?
If I saw an ad that said "Metal airplanes for sale!" with no mention of scale or period, I would be annoyed.

Hi

"Dear potential buyer, please buy my rules. They are exactly like the game you already play except for a couple obscure issues buried somewhere on page 34 that will never be used. I have new shiny covers. I will put you to no stress or effort with a new idea that might make the gaming faster or more historically accurate. And with this promotion, I intend to produce the "flavor of the month" just long enough to pay off my equipment until the fad fades. If the fad doesn't go away as it should, I will produce a new version with a more obscure rule you will never use and new covers so that I can milk you again. Hopefully, you will never realize that my basing system and rules systems are just a piggyback ride on prior rules.

Be comforted, and BUY!

Rocky

"Giving me the information I need before I plunk down $40.00 USD USD is preposterous?"

Why bother? Most rules worth the effort are much cheaper or free.
Of course staying popular can be costly these days.

Cool, new Mustangs and Messerschmitts rules! Hey, wait a minute…

I sort of agree with John. "You can base your figures anyway you like but we suggest…"

Also, I have noticed that many of these ads don't actually give enough information. Essentially they don't answer the mail.

What is the product? What period/genre does it cover? How much does it cost? Here's one that is usually left out…how many figures do you need to play? (Two complete armies is not an answer BTW). Game scale? Not important to me but there are plenty out there who would like to know. Level of operation? Is it a skirmish game, mid ranged game or army game? How much does it cost? Link provided to the website?

I would think that would get the point across on what the game is about. Even if it is one sentence per point. It is not much to ask for.

John

PS. All of this agreeing with John the OFM makes me think the end of the world is at hand!

PS. All of this agreeing with John the OFM makes me think the end of the world is at hand!

Temporary aberration. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

It will pass. No need to get alarmed.

Dear John,

I'm on your side of the boat.

I probably write the windiest rules release announcements outside of Government Bureaucracy, and while I make no claim to having done so with any sort of perfection, I seem to recal that I do address basing issues (among many others).

Personally, as a customer, I want to know as much as possible as soon as possible so I can really know if the new rules would be of interest to me.

If it's a period/subject I've wanted to get into, but don't already have figures, basing will be whatever it is, though knowing what the "preferred" figure scale is would be important to know.

I suppose it would be ideal to know that a new set of rules would not require my collection to be rebased, but personally I don't really play multiple rules for one subject. If I find a new set of rules better than my old ones, rebasing is not such a problem. I'd do it because I like the new game better.

Bottom line for me is that I'd rather risk telling too much about new rules (or any product)--even if it might mean losing a few sales--rather than disappoint customers with a product they will inevitably feel was "mis-represented." That hurts my future sales, and that is what I as manufacturer/publisher/retailer have to focus on.

TVAG

'And what is "sabot basing"?'

Using a larger base to plunk your individually based or smaller bases on. Some just cut a larger base and plunk their figures on it.

I have my 15mm black powder figures on 1 inch wide steel bases for tactical rules. When I play Volley & Bayonet and other grand-tactical games, they get put on larger magnetic sabot bases that hold a number of smaller bases.

My Fall of Rome stuff is on plywood Litko DBA bases with flexible metal bottoms. When we play Armati or Basic Impetus, those bases go on larger magnetic bases that hold two ranks of two smaller stands, for four small bases on each sabot base. Hope that makes sense.

Temporary aberration. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

It will pass. No need to get alarmed.

Thanks John. I think you're right.

Oh God! That's twice now! Repent! Repent!

Dave Crowell said:

The obsession with basing is chimera, a paper tiger, a non-issue. Simply put in most games the actual figures convey no information that couldn't be represented by standard military symbols or a numbered counter and a roster sheet.

I entirely agree with Dave. However, I am cruelly shouted down whenever and wherever I make this argument--most gamers simply do not want to hear that basing is largely irrelevant. There are so many approximations in ground scale, unit scale, time scale, etc., that very little can be said accurately about basing 'scale'.

Nevertheless, in principle, I also agree with John that the onus of convincing me to buy a product is on the seller. Somehow provide usability information (and I believe that a support website suffices), or resign yourself to losing ssles from some fraction of your intended buyers.

I cannot understand what all the fuss is about here (flame proof pants at the ready).

A few thoughts:

1) This is a game so does it really matter as long as both sides agree the line up of troops in combat. Think it through – bigger bases can be hit by more smaller bases at once off setting the advantage of more reach over the little guys.

2) GW introduced the 'Counts As' rule – seems to cover the different sizes fine.

3) Why buy rules that force you to represent the actual number of bodies in a unit by the number of figures. To my limited knowledge of history, very few units actually matched the 'correct' figure

Fire away folks but what the heck – I'm only playing skirmish and Ogre at the moment and its all one-to-one for me :-)

For me only one thing is important: my figures on the table have to look like the troops they represent. So no 18th century regiment of foot containing 18 figures in two lines. If that means 28mm is beyond my financial scope – so be it. There are beautiful 15mm figures (even 6mm !). I start with an army and then look for rules. I will never play competition or tournament because I do not like that, but never am short of opponents. So the ad for new rules have to tell me a. for what level these rules are intended and b. what one base represents (company ? battallion ?). Napoleonic Fire & Fury (Age of Eagles) works (like F & F) with brigades, but I have no problem at all with (for instance) using French "brigades" built from six bases with four figures (two lines)each – four voltigeurs, four grenadiers and four bases with each four fusiliers in the appropriate pompom colour. A British "brigade" can be 10 bases of two figures each (one line). If the original rules (that are of course not developed for me personally :-))) do not fit I just tweak them until they do. Rules are only a guideline, I (or perhaps "we") are the boss.

I do agree with John's basic premise that advertising for a game should tell you the basics.

I find that figure scale is as irrelevant as basing to most sets. 5-10 6mm, 2-3 15mm or 1 40mm, in most cases the game plays the same. And ground scales are usually far off from figure scale in any case.

I do like to know level of operations, nominal figure:man ratio, optimal table size for the rules as written, number of figures/bases in a typical army,amry lists, periods, or forces covered.

I have actually been a bit put off purchasing the new GW: The Great War by the answers to some of these questions. I like the 1:3 figure to man ratio, I like the roughly battalion level of operations, I like the units comprised of multiple sing based figures, I actually like the WH40K based mechanics, however the lack of Palestine/Gallipoli, and the AEF from the basic rulebook I cannot play the two actions that most interest me. So now I will wait to see what the supplements bring. As soon as I know the campaigns I want to play will be available I will jump in, but until then…

Given the price of the rulebook I would have been very disappointed to buy it and then discover what was not included…

Perhaps all rules sets should say: "Figures must be individually based for Sabots which are provided in the boxed edition of the rules, or you can base your figures for our ruleset after you purchase them."

Then you have a definitive answer – sabot basing shall be the industry standard – and perhaps all casters will now insert rare earth magnets into the base of their models so figures can be simply and easily moved from one basing system to another or to painting strips with ease.

Hmm – I think I'm on to something.

Not sure I am keen on the magnets in the base

The chance of this industry being standard as to North or South facing down is about as much as me rolling a six when I need it.

Though maybe a new market of sabot conversion cards could be in the making now (where is my patent lawyer when I need him?)

Sorry OFM, but you missed the target this time. I say this because I find it impossible to believe that you would shell out $40 USD on a set of rules after reading only one ad or press release about it. If the period or figures interest you, then you'll go find out more before you spend that much money on a new ruleset. If the information is relevant, then basing info should be available on their Website or in a detailed article about the rules. But if it's just a short piece or an ad, no way. Click over to their Website and read enough to make an informed decision.

Now, what does bug ME is when people submit a news article and don't list the city and state of a convention (they just assume that I know all the small towns in Oregon and will figure it out) or that they don't mention the scale of a miniature being released (sorry, but I buy MANY different lines and I might not happen to remember that xxx line is 15mm, when I buy only 28mm figs).

Articles need to provide enough info to guide you and entice you, but they don't need to answer every question you might have about them.

HOWEVER… I did take this as a hint and added the info to the Gutshot FAQ page: link

Gotta agree (sorry John, I know all this agreeing makes you uncomfortable).

Old advertising saying: the more you tell the more you sell.

Tell people stuff they will want to know before they shell out their hard earned on your fine product: base sizing, rough size of forces needed to play, rough level of engagement modeled, min table size, how long the average game takes, and whether or not it is designed for a specific scale seem to be a reasonable minimum of info to impart if you want someone to consider buying your rules.

Instead so often we get cloned and useless info about 'realistic, fast moving play extensively play tested by experienced wargamers….etc'

And frankly these days some nice pics of an actual game posted on the web doesn't seem to much to ask. I've recently bought Sharp Practice and DBN precisely because they showed/told me what I needed to know in order to order.

They are customers. If you want them to buy your rules, play by theirs.

Whatisitgood4atwork: I agree that the info should be there, I just don't think it should all be in a short ad or simple article announcing a product release. The Website exists as an big brochure/catalog that provides in-depth info about a product.

So, WHERE did you get the info about Sharp Practice and DBN? Story? Ad? Or somewhere more suited to providing the depth of information that you needed to make an informed decision?

mmitchell,

Fair enough. We agree the info is needed. And I don't care where it is, so long as I can find it easily.

To me, what I find when I click on 'for more info' is as much a part of the ad as the actual announcement. The bit before the link should get me interested enough to click through.

And yes, I did find my info about the above products largely from TMP threads. But again, to me a well-put-together battle report is as much an ad for the product as a short paid announcement. Arguably much more so.

Communications are -to use the terrible buzz word of the moment – a 360 degree environment. As I tell my clients – and they tell me until we are all thoroughly sick of it – an ad can only do so much. But we have to allow the 'consumer' to 'engage with the brand/product' up to the level they choose.

God I hate that jargon, but sometimes it pays my salary.

I believe this is an important subject: improving the transparency in the relationship seller-purchaser within the hobby.

The original post provided basing as an example, in fact a very good one. If for one game basing is irrelevant (like hex or template based games) for the other it may be essential (when base geometry and contact matters).
I've been myself stressing scale (proper).
Again the potential customer should seek all the relevant info before a final decision and not be deceived by a sleek marketing strategy. He should not only ask, but demand.
I guess we are all learning.

Hi

Re sabots, I have been doing figs this way since the 70s. When I was living in Denver, I was gaming with 4 different groups using 4 different sets of rules on 4 different basing standards. Each of them only gamed about once every 6 weeks, and I get the shakes if I don't kill something weekley! So, started with tacky glue bases and just popped the figs from base to base for the games. WRG4th days.

Snif.

Arexu….well we fly weekley here. And the LA crowd are pushing that we do a website so that all the groups can communicate better on the game, upgrades and so on. I was thinking "yahoo"

Rocky

Jerboa,

I partly agree and partly disagree.

Agree that transparency is a good thing for both parties.

I disagree that folks are being 'deceived by a sleek marketing strategy'. This is still a business populated far more by enthusiastic amateurs than pro marketers and that works well. Also the 'sleekest' marketing strategies are simple forthright and informative rather than deceiving. I don't think many folks in the hobby/business set out to be deceptive, they just don't think through their offerings from a customer perspective.

People like Peter Berry at Baccus do it wonderfully. IMO one of the best marketers in the business, but nothing 'tricky', just presenting his product well, providing what (one segment of ) gamers want and helping his product speak for itself.

OTOH, I see (IMO) an actual 'anti-marketing' bias in folks like Phil barker's offerings, which seem to distrust 'sleek marketing' as a betrayal of the spirit of the hobby or something, hence their offerings suffer due to their refusal to present them as their customers would want them. I repeat, just IMO.

I prefer the Baccus approach to the Barker – though I still buy and use his fine rules.

I agree we are all learning.